The research in this area is clearly in its infancy. The research article cited
has some pretty serious limitations as does the research finding little or no
differences between children reared in gay versus straight relationship homes.
It seems to me that the most we can say at this point is that the research is
inconclusive. The challenge is that we won't really be able to answer these
questions until we have many years of experience with gay marriage in a society
that is supportive of gay marriage. By then, it will be too late to reverse
those rights if there are significant problems. Instead we will be left to
identify any potential problems and either compensate for them or encourage
certain people not to marry. Does this argue against supporting gay marriage?
Probably not as it becomes a question of the rights of the parents versus the
rights of the children where the rights of the children may or may not be a
problem. To curtail the rights of the potential parents based on a potential
but unproven harm to the children seems unlikely to carry the debate.

As one who was adopted, and who in turn also has adopted children, I would agree
with these comments, if "normal" families were stepping up and adopting
these kids. But in the real world, this isn't happening. There are far
way too many kids-in-waiting out there, looking for these "normal"
families to step up, and provide them homes.

And likewise, white,
normal families don't always equate to better parents, as evidenced by the
white dad from Idaho on the flight hit his colored adopted infant, cursing at
him while calling him the N-word. What kid of loving family is that.

So if we really are doing this for the kids, we need to realize that
plan A - the best plan - just isn't available to enough kids out there that
need families. I am not a big fan of gay marriage, but, telling these kids
orphanages is better, or living with bad "normal" families - I think
plan B is better than the status quo.

I would love that every kid had
a mom and a dad... but until we stop having 50 of families end in divorce, that
argument just doesn't hold up.

The author is overstating the amount of evidence that suggests the children of
same-sex couples do more poorly in life than heterosexual couples. She
references an article in Slate by Dr. Regnerus, who found in a single study of
his that children of same sex couples have more negative outcomes in life than
heterosexual couples. He admits his one study runs very much contrary to the
body of evidence on this matter. He also writes that adopted children are more
likely to have negative outcomes in life.

Dr. Erickson needs to be
careful about the argument she is making. If children's welfare is the
foremost and overriding concern, divorce should be made illegal. Couples who
cannot conceive have no right to marriage. And by her logic, adoption should be
very much frowned upon. If future research showed that there were an optimal
family size for child welfare, say 3 kids, would she also support policies that
force this family size on us? And if future research showed no clear
disadvantage for children of stable same-sex couples, would she then drop her
opposition?

I agree. There are a lot of people on both sides of the issue who using
specious arguments. I visit a page on facebook that is visited by a lot of
evangelicals. They will always refer to the Bible to support traditional
marriage. There are good solid arguments to support the benefits of promoting
traditional marriage that don't require someone to believe in the Bible.
80% of the world's cultures accept marriage as being between a man and a
woman. It is even more than "from the dawn of civilization" argument.
Stoneage cultures (presumably, before civilization if you define civilization as
being metal tools, city states, etc) recognized that the father and the mother
brought different but equal contributions into the marriage and to the
children.

Marriage is society's way of promoting the rights of
children to be raised by their biological parents inasmuch as possible and that
fathers are responsible for their reproductive actions.

Let me reassure you: For Straight (i.e.
heterosexual) couples, absolutely nothing about marriage is changing. Nothing is
being redefined. Straight people will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and
build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to
change when Gay couples are allowed to do the same.

Your editorial
seems to focus on the needs of children. Please keep in mind that (1) couples
are no required to marry to make babies, and (2) the ability or even desire to
make babies is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license, so
parenthood is irrelevant to the issue of marriage equality for Gay couples.

Also keep in mind that there are COUNTLESS single people and couples,
both Straight and Gay, who have taken unwanted children into their homes and
raised them to be healthy, well-adjusted adults. It's certainly preferable
to leaving children to languish in orphanages.

Permitting Gay couples
to marry will not affect the number of Straight couples who marry, divorce,
cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of
opposite-sex marriages. Enough with the hysteria already.

I say a resounding "Amen" to all of what Jenet Jacob Erickson says in
her article above.

Regarding Maudine's comment, where she says,
"If marriage is truly for the benefit of children, all children deserve the
benefit of the option of married parents - even if those parents are the same
gender.

You cannot prohibit same-sex marriage on the grounds of
children's rights unless you are prepared to prohibit other relationships
that are not ideal for children on the same grounds."

What does
Maudine mean? If she means "other relationships" include adultery, or
other matters of sexual perversion, then I would definitely agree that society
needs to ALSO prohibit such damaging relationships. However, if she is proposing
that "gay marriage" should not be banned necessarily because other
aberrations continue in the world, I would strongly disagree. Guaranteeing a sin
safe world BEFORE one cannot guarantee children safety from all other damaging
things is an impossible task, which Maudine knows full well can't be
guaranteed by anyone.

A wise, well-considered column. Social liberals have, for decades, have argued
that diversity in gender is crucial to a healthy society ... that both men and
women are essential, particularly in leadership and government. Why, then, is
it suddenly irrelevant in the family, the basic unit of society? Gay marriage
says that differences in gender are irrelevant ... that a woman can replace a
man, or a man can replace a woman as partners and as parents, with no
circumstances.

Marriage is not a "right" for anyone, even for
straight people. Ask the millions of singles who want to be married but
can't find someone who is right for them.

As for Maudine's
comments, we know 'optimal' parenting situations are not always
possible. Life takes its turns ... death and divorce frequently take a father or
mother out of the picture. We certainly don't pursue such situations. We
work with what we are dealt and make the best of it. It makes no sense, though,
to advocate ANY 'family' situation that intentionally robs a child of
a mother and a father ... which is precisely what the gay rights movement
narrow-mindedly does.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief
on same-sex parenting based on 59 independent studies of children raised by
same-sex couples. The APA concluded that, “Not a single study has found
children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant
respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

Moreover,
in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision on Prop 8, (a must-read) the issue of
whether or not same-sex parents places children at a disadvantage was examined
in detail and was soundly rejected as a basis for denying marriage equality. The
best available objective evidence simply does _not_ support a claim that
marriage equality in any way harms children.

Given the huge natural
variability in how well people, regardless of sexual orientation, raise
children, is it really useful to debate marriage equality exclusively in terms
of child rearing? From my own experience I see abundant evidence that among the
good and bad parents I've known in my life, their sexual orientation is
_way_ down the list of character traits that have an effect on parenting.

Consider for a moment that it REALLY does take a mother and a father to create
an infant. Therefore maybe God's intent really is that any child actually
have a mother AND a father. Maybe we really ought to consider God in this debate
as well. After all, where does the eternal spirit originate which quickens the
human body and gives it life?

"Given the huge natural variability in how well people,
regardless of sexual orientation, raise children, is it really useful to debate
marriage equality exclusively in terms of child rearing?"

No, it
isn't useful. But that's not the point, is it? The argument against
gay marriage isn't rooted in verifiable evidence and objective analysis of
outcomes. It's rooted in theology and cultural tradition. That's why
this editorial relies heavily on rhetoric and only brings in one carefully
selected scientific study that has been criticized for using biased methodology
and flawed interpretation of the results.

This is a horrible argument. In the world view of the author, then childless
people should not be married and divorce should be illegal. The argument that
you will be on the wrong side of history is true.

I completely agree that the welfare of children should be a central issue in
this debate. Which is why I so strongly support marriage equality. I also
oppose elective abortion, as a moral issue, another reason to support marriage
equality. I can't see how an increase in the numbers of highly motivated
loving prospective parenting couples can have any effect except to bless the
lives of children. What astonishes me is that this author opposes something as
obviously beneficial as marriage equality.